NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Burke

Burke Ramsey has now become "flavor of the month," as one forum poster recently put it. Thanks to Kolar's book, many have now become wedded to the theory that Burke must have struck JonBenet over the head in a fit of rage and/or jealousy, and his parents, terrified the "family honor" would be tarnished, contrived an elaborate coverup, involving a vicious strangulation by a demented sexual predator using a "garotte," and a two and a half page ransom note, written of course by Patsy, everyone's favorite villainess. John appears to have gone along for the ride, or possibly had nothing to do with it at all, as Boulder detective Steve Thomas seems to believe. (Steve gave him "a pass.")

As for the vaginal injuries, both acute and chronic, Kolar managed to find all sorts of books and studies suggesting that yes, nine year old boys can be sexually active and also violent and also incest-prone, etc. For him, this is the only scenario that makes sense, and I can understand that, because based on his assumptions, no other alternative seems possible. Quoting Sherlock Holmes, he says "Once you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Of course, this is complete nonsense, because he never even attempts to eliminate John, never even considers him as the possible cause of JonBenet's vaginal injuries. (And by the way, there is no evidence she was penetrated by a paintbrush handle, that's a myth. The medical examiner's report says "digital penetration.") And, like so many others, he assumes the decision to rule John out as writer of the note is written on stone tablets emanating from On High.

Let's try to put Kolar's allegations in perspective. As we now know, John and Patsy could not have collaborated on the "ransom" note. If that had been the case, there would have been no 911 call so early on the morning of the 26th. (See my second post, "Case Solved," for the details of this argument.) Nor is there any reason to suspect Patsy of having written it. She was the one who made that call, which could not have been made by the writer of the note (again see "Case Solved"). Clearly John wrote the note. And just as clearly, he saw no reason to share this information with Patsy, who must have been completely in the dark. (I realize this sort of thing is heresy to a great many following the case, but if you read here carefully you might change your mind. Others have.)

Does this mean John had been molesting his daughter? Does this mean he also murdered her? Or could Burke have been responsible for one or both acts, with John covering for him? Strictly speaking, we have no way of knowing. There is no direct evidence linking either John or Burke to the physical assault on JonBenet. Well, that isn't completely true, because fibers from John's shirt were found in JonBenet's crotch. For the sake of argument, I'll pass on that for now.

Now let's suppose Burke had been molesting JonBenet and let's suppose he flew into a rage for some reason and slammed her over the head with that Maglite. And let's suppose John caught him in the act, and, moreover, discovered the vaginal injuries. What to do? If it were simply a matter of the head injury, the thing to do would be to call 911 then and there, get her to the hospital and hope she'd recover. It could easily have been explained as an accident. Or a fight between two children that got out of hand. But what if the doctors noticed her vaginal injuries, what then? Would they believe him if he said they were caused by his nine year old son? Would they even believe Burke if he confessed? Not likely. Because c'mon, what would YOU believe? HE, the innocent John Ramsey, would have been accused of molestation and murder, and could have wound up in jail or worse. Can we see this as a motive for a coverup? Yes indeed.

So yes, if we want to strictly limit ourselves to the realm of the possible, I suppose it is possible Burke could be the guilty party with John staging a phoney kidnapping out of sheer self defense. As far as the "garotte" is concerned, that's a bit harder to explain, but again I'll let it pass for the sake of argument.

With regard to the above scenario there are two points to be made right off the bat. First, whether Burke or John was responsible for the physical injuries has no bearing on any other aspect of the case. Strictly speaking, there is no way to prove beyond doubt that one or the other killed her. So, while I feel confident I can prove John wrote the note, and staged all other aspects of the coverup, I must confess I cannot prove beyond doubt that he and not Burke is the killer. Second, it's important to remember that our legal system is based not on any doubt whatsoever, but on "reasonable doubt," so the question is not one of absolute proof, but of what seems reasonable and what does not.

So. I ask you. If you are on a jury in a case where a young girl was sexually molested and murdered, and the only possible suspects are her mother, her nine year old brother and her middle aged father, which would you say was the most likely culprit? Forget about Patsy, Burke and John, just imagine yourself in the courtroom considering three people about whom you have no preconceptions. What would you think of a defense that went as follows?

Yes, I know this looks bad for me, but hey, you may not realize it but there's all sorts of literature proving that nine year old boys can be sexually active, so you have to believe me when I say my son did it and not me. When I saw what he'd done I panicked because I was sure I was going to be blamed. So I made it look like an intruder did it. I confess to the coverup but not the murder.

Of course the nine year old could not be prosecuted, so he'd have been in no danger. What would YOU think of such a defense?

"Once you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Yes. However, it is most certainly not impossible that John Ramsey both molested his daughter and then killed her out of fear she was going to expose him. This is not an uncommon sequence of events. And in this case, the most likely by far. Moreover, it is certainly highly improbable that an obviously frail nine year old boy would have been sexually molesting his sister. Improbable also that this same frail boy could have cracked her skull open with a single blow. Improbable also that his father would have gone to such lengths, and taken such huge risks, to cover for him. And at this point we must consider the "garotte" strangulation, which is in fact what killed her, which means that even if he were covering for Burke, he would still be culpable for murder.

So I'm sorry, but John Ramsey has to be brought before a court of law, regardless. And if he chooses to argue that he was only covering for his son, fine, he'll be free to make that argument. And let a jury decide if they believe him. I certainly wouldn't.

So much for Burke-did-it. In my opinion this is a truly unlikely off the wall theory, but strictly speaking there is no way to prove otherwise, so I'll leave it at that.

But this is not the only thing to consider with respect to Burke. As Kolar argues, his parents' efforts to "protect" him are indeed very suspicious and do in fact raise many red flags. Kolar quickly jumps to the conclusion that they're protecting him because he's guilty and might confess, which would disgrace their "family honor." But there are other reasons they might not have wanted him questioned and these are not difficult to guess. He is one of only three potential witnesses and there is no way for anyone, including Patsy and John, to know for sure what he might or might not have seen and heard that night. If John is our murderer and I don't doubt for a minute that he is, then he'd be scared stiff that Burke might know more than he's letting on. When he was nine, he'd have been easy to intimidate and possibly also even threaten. But an aggressive interrogator might have pulled some things out of him anyhow, so best to make sure that type of questioning never takes place.

Burke is now much older and one thing I've become aware of in all that time is how quiet he's been. Not only has he been unwilling to testify to the police, he's never once to my knowledge come forward in defense of his parents, which strikes me as very unusual. If he truly believes both parents are innocent, why hasn't he been willing to come out in public and defend them? If he knows something that might not look so good when brought to light, then his silence is understandable. Let's hope that eventually his sense of justice will prevail and he'll finally come forward with what he knows.

119 comments:

If Burke did it there would have to be something so horrific accompanying it that an ambulance could not be called. It is odd how, like you said, he has neither come forward to defend or incriminate his parents. Also he hasn't said something to a friend or girlfriend that has then been spread.

I am wondering what you think would have happened if Patsy had not called 911. John would have had to cancel the plane trip and phoned family members to at least let them know something serious was up. Then at some point when Patsy is distracted get rid of the body? Then call LE to put the kidnapping plan in motion for the next day's phone call which would not come? If this was his plan why did he find the body at 1pm? Why not just leave it hoping no one else would find it and hope he would have an opportunity later to get rid of the body? After all the place wasn't exactly crawling with detectives. By no means is JR even close to being off my radar but you say he didn't want Patsy to call 911 because of the kidnapping plan of the ransom note but yet he ruins it himself by finding the body. Just leave the body. No one has found it in 7 hours. No one is even looking for a body. Buy some time. Wait for Linda Arndt to arrange for BPD to come back tomorrow for the kidnappers phone call. Try to sneak the body out overnight although this would be difficult, I understand that. But why find the body yourself and ruin the ransom note's kidnapping plan?

I think whatever happened, mass confusion followed. They had 4-5 hours to concoct a plan and the fake kidnapping was the best they could come up with. Unfortunately it worked pretty darn well.

Where does the pineapple come into your theory?

Like I said before, I don't discount that JR did it. The guy wasted no time hooking up with new females after Patsy died. Life really does go on for this guy. He must be a real charmer. He is almost 70, has females dropping dead all around him and yet is still hot on the dating scene. I think if I had 2 daughters and a wife die I would be curled up in a corner somewhere, but that's just me...

Keep the posts coming. I am looking forward to your thoughts on a daily basis. I know it's tough getting sucked back into this after leaving it for awhile. Same thing with me. Consumes so much time. Hopefully it will be all worth it at some point.

My theory of what John had planned, if 911 had not been called, can be found in my post "A Scenario" (http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/a-scenario.html). I think he would have made sure Patsy and Burke went to stay with friends, "for their own safety," while he dealt with the kidnappers. So if all had gone according to plan he'd have been home alone. He would not have called LE until after he'd "delivered the ransom" and not heard anything back from the kidnappers. By then he'd have had a chance to get rid of the body and all the other evidence, including the note itself and complete the staging of his window breakin. He'd have been home free.

"If this was his plan why did he find the body at 1pm?"

The 911 call was NOT part of his plan. Once the police were involved, he wouldn't have had much leeway to do much of anything. I think he needed to be the one to find the body because it was probably hidden in a corner under blankets, and if that's how others found it, that would have looked especially bad for him. Kidnappers don't go to all that trouble to hide the bodies of their victims in-house after having given up on their kidnap plan.

Also if he'd waited much longer the body would have begun to smell, giving its location away. Too risky to sneak it out of the house later, since the house would have probably been too closely watched by the police. If there had been no 911 call he'd have had lots of opportunities to get rid of the body. Once they've been called the picture changes drastically and so do his options.

As for the pineapple, here again the evidence points away from a John and Patsy collaboration. If both were in on it together, they could easily have told the police, yes, she had some pineapple that evening. But if one of them fed her the pineapple and other knew nothing about it, then you have a situation where both claim to know nothing, but one is telling the truth and the other is lying. I think John fed her the pineapple after she'd been put to bed, and Patsy knew nothing about it.

DocG, I'm only reading up on your theory now and I must say it is convincing. However, on the matter of the pineapple: I thought the only fingerprints on that cup were Patsy and Burke's. If that is so, would it not exclude John as the one who fed her? Or am I mistaken about the prints.

Prints can be misleading, because there's no way of knowing how or when they got there. Patsy could have been putting the dishes away in a cupboard the previous day and Burke could have been helping her. It's also true that in many cases prints are not found at all, even though someone was known to have handled the item in question. We assume with good reason that JonBenet ate that pineapple, but her prints aren't on that bowl either.

I can sure see why Patsy and Burke's prints would be on the bowl, it seems only natural in any household. I can even understand the lack of JonBenet's prints: maybe she only used a spoon or her fingers and never touched the bowl (or maybe someone fed her, which may very well happen when a child is tired and cranky).

However I'm having real hard time seeing how John's prints would not be on the bowl if he was the one preparing and serving it to JB. He would have to had touched it at least twice: when taking it out of the cabin/wherever it was, then again when he would serve it to JB. And again if he put the bowl away. Even if she ate at the sink, I'm having difficulty creating a scene where he doesn't touch the bowl with his fingertips.

Granted I don't really know much about prints. But I do know that MY prints are always on my newly washed bowls and plates, as soon as I've laid a finger on them. It seems to me a porcelain bowl is a perfect surface for perfect prints, being smooth and grease-free. Perhaps the bowl was plastic or steel - however the lack of John's prints puzzles me. To me, it is an imperfection in your otherwise splendid and hole-free theory. Right now it's the only thing keeping me from buying JDI.

The only explanation I can think of is that John would have wiped away his prints. However this would be a very clear sign of... how do you put it, pre-contemplation? Sorry, English is not my mother tongue and the word escapes me now. I mean he would have planned the whole gruesome murder in advance, which does not seem to fit with the silly and poorly planned ransom note... I tell you I'm stuck here.

It's often assumed that anyone who touches anything leaves prints, but that is in fact not the case.

" Myths and Fallacies:

NO LATENT PRINTS WERE FOUND AT THE SCENE, SO HE MUST HAVE WORN GLOVES OR HE WIPED THEM OFF!

There are many factors that cause an item to lack sufficient ridge detail. Surfaces, pressure, or the condition that existed before or after the finger or hand touched the surface, are some of these." see http://www.scafo.org/library/100303.html

If Burke was abusing his sister sexually, then we can notice his sexuality desire in the photos he has with JonBenet, but at any of them, a dozen of them, we see just two pure children who are brother and sister. Moreover, assuming that he did it and killed her, and parents decided to be on his side, they never would had called 911. They could left the house with their private jet, get rid out of the body, and think for the next step. If they decided to protect a killer, who was a kid, they never would invited the police or friends at home especially right after the crime. How many others did Bruke killed before his sister?! Was he a cold blooded serial killer that parents knew and were sure that anybody wouldn't doubted him?!

The same nonsense is to think that John frequently abused his daughter sexually, and knowing that he would have been the first suspect of the abuse and crime left the corpse in the house and after he created a stupid cover up invited the police at home to enjoy his story. When he saw that police were incompetent in their work he decided to give them the body of JonBenet for expertise. If John was so addicted to his daughter sexually, why he let his wife to expose her beauty to other perverse men on the pageant shows? I think John loved his daughter a lot, also his wife. I think he was like the most fathers are, who leave their daughters in mothers' hands. I don't see any obsession of him for the sexuality of his daughter. As I mentioned above, we have a dozen of their family photos available on the internet and judge based on them. We don't need experts to tell us who has a glaring sexual desire look, we know it from everyday experiences in our life. No, John was a good father. I never think he did it.

As for Patsy I cannot say nothing bad about her. She was JonBenet's mother and I never can say a bad word about her, she loved her daughter dearly and she was proud for her beauty. Her mistake was that she wanted all the world to see the beauty of her daughter, a mistake that any mother can make.

I agree with you about Burke. I don't see any reason to suspect him of having any sort of sexual interest in his sister. There's no sign of that, as you say.

But John is another matter. There have been many cases of "loving" fathers sexually abusing their daughters, and very often everyone who knew them is shocked when they learn about it. Also I don't think John was necessarily abusing her for a long time before the murder. It could have been the way Patsy dressed her and made her up to look much older and sexier that got him interested. There is a first time for everything and I think it's possible that John could have begun abusing her only a few days before the murder.

Let's suppose that John was a "loving" father who abused his daughter sexually because her mother dressed her in that way that she looked sexier and much older. But, if so, John could have been a great hanger of the pageant shows where a lot of little girls were exposed on the same way as his daughter. Was he? Some say that he was very interested in child pornography and looked a lot pictures like this in the Internet, but why not to go and see those girls on the scene and imagine they were naked, and chose one of them as a future pray?! Who can do things like that to his daughter, and has a lot of money, is more eager to do those ugly things to children of others also. You say that this was just the beginning for John with his daughter, it means that he could have done that before with other children, because it's so hard to believe that in his age, that was just a momentum.

We have no way of knowing what John might have imagined as he attended those pageants. What we do know is that he was not at home very much and spent a lot of time on "business trips" overseas, many in the Netherlands, where anything goes as far as sex is concerned. We actually know very little about John Ramsey. Oh and by the way, he is now married to a lady who designs costumes for Las Vegas showgirls.

My question was not what John imagined, but if he was a regular attender of pageant shows. I don't understand one thing, why only you have the right to allude what John could have done "overseas" by stressing the reason why people often go there, and I don't have it when I allude about his imagination on those shows?! However, do you mean a revenge? A story inside another story!

All I meant was that there are many things about John Ramsey that we don't know and all sorts of possibilities for him to have done certain things we know nothing about, including his attendance at beauty pageants. And you have every right to allude to whatever makes sense to you, just as I do. When did I ever say you didn't? My problem is not with when you speculate but when you write as though you know what happened when there is no evidence for that. And I don't know what you mean by "revenge." Revenge for what?

I don't know what happens, I'm analyzing the facts and think what could have happened. My theory is that John didn't do it, also Patsy didn't do it. If there was not an intruder, and I think the family members didn't do it, then by not knowing what John have done outside his home, the only choice for me is a ghost who took revenge towards John to his daughter. But, since I do not believe in ghosts I'm trying to use my judgement to think that everything bad happens to Ramseys, happened from outsiders that had access that night at their house from a door not a window. By the way, the story of a ghost is not so bad, since people believed once that the voluntary killer was at the same time in two places, people can believe anything.

It's me again:). I think you're wrong in regards that Burke is the 'flavor of the month'. I think this 'flavor' was long time on the table for many of us (including me), much before Kolar's book. And for one reason only: it's possible. I remember the first pages of PMPT, starting with Brian Scott interview (Ramsey's gardener). He was passionately describing outgoing, warm and curious JBR in contrast to Burke's shyness, withdrawal and even non-respectful behavior. Here is from this interview: 'Her brother, Burke, was three years older. He almost never said a word to me. Just played by himself in the backyard, completely occupied with his own projects...."Someday you're going to be an engineer?" I asked him. "No" he said. Just a single world - no'.

Maybe it means nothing, the child just has been busy and don't want to be disturbed, especially by gardener! Or, maybe, we have a small glimpse to Burke's behavior problem. I'm sure it was strange to many of us to see non-emotional Burke during JBR funeral. And looks like the same behavior was noticed during his interview with the Social Behavior Worker. Looks like he wasn't missing her sister at all. But, regardless of other's observations - would you, with your analytical mind, would be suprized to learn that this small, 'fragile 10 year old boy (he was couple weeks shy from being 10, so let's call it as is - 10 year old!) is NOT afraid of 'kidnappers' who killed his loving sister?!!! This fact by itself telling me a lot. Children around Boulder were scared. Adults, their parents, were scared...But Burke wasn't!

I'm the big proponent of psychological profiling (as you've been already noticed). I strongly believe that we, as the humans, in addition to unique DNA, have been 'wired' with the complicated psychological imprint, imposed by our parents behavior and genetic inheritance. And as we grow, this psychological foundation, effecting our decision in every step of our adulthood life. So, based on what I know today (and thanks to an additional info from Kolar's book) - I can deduct that Burke did have problems in 1996. I don't believe in 'normal' standards. Like one professor said: 'The only true meaning of the 'normal' exists on your dishwasher's dial'. But I did observe the boundary of 'common normality' in 10 years old children. And Burke's behavior didn't fit that boundary. Was he capable to molest his sister? Probably. Was he capable of the uncontrollable rage? Probably. Was he capable to LIE (or should we say: keep the secrets?) Absolutely. So, door is wide open in regards of BRI....JMO.

"Children around Boulder were scared. Adults, their parents, were scared...But Burke wasn't!"

Good point. But how would we really know? This sounds like a child with borderline autism or aspergers, or at the very least extremely introverted and shy. Not likely to be very communicative about his feelings. Also, as I said, I think he knows some things about what happened. It's possible he knows everything.

The main problem with your theory, as with Kolar's is that it fails to consider the most likely candidate by far, and that is John. Psychological profiling can be a useful tool, but it can't tell us who killed someone in the absence of hard evidence. And plain common sense tells us that a grown man rather than a nine year old child with no history of violence is by far the most likely to have molested and killed JonBenet.

So no I don't think the door is wide open. But I can't deny it could be open by a crack, since there is no way to prove Burke didn't do it. Once we have John and Burke on the stand, we'll be in a better position to sort that out.

I do agree. Without hard evidence, we cannot say for sure who did what. And without knowledge if nine year old child had the history of violence - we cannot proof anything. So, based on the FACTS known TODAY, at the minimum, we should agree on the following: - Burke has the knowledge (maybe not the full picture but much more than he ever told 'outsider') what happens that night; - Relationship between Burke and his parents since the morning of December 26 is more than strange ('no, we never talk to him about'; 'no, he never asked'; 'he was asleep'; 'ooops, he wasn't sleeping' and by the way, regardless of the danger to be 'kidnapped' by intruder(s) - let's send him to our friends for 'protection');- Burke and his remaining family will never confess. Hence, no indictment.

Therefore, IMO, as the public and taxpayers, if we wants to know the truth then we should send our DEMANDS to DA and Boulder Government to 'unseal' Burke's medical files.

I see no reason to think Burke knows anything he hasn't told to outsiders. Burke could have woke up as PR was yelling about the RN and started making the 911 call. He's probably been completely brainwashed to believe the intruder theory and that the police were targeting JR/PR because they couldn't find the "real" culprit.

I read the Kolar's book, sorry to say but he is wrong all the way. He likes us to think that Burke is the killer, and he describes him with two personalities: shy, non-talkative, doesn't have emotions at all and the other side his curiosity about sex but only toward his sister and also outraged and capable to kill, still only his sister. But an impulsive and outrage person can't hide this aspect of his/her character when his second personality becomes evident so easily. On that stage he could have been a big problem in the neighborhood, toward everyone lives there despite their age. After Kolar suggests his theory, he describes Burke as a monster who can kill only once, in order to justify why Burke didn't kill again since then.

My scenario: JonBenet was killed by a group of people who entertained themselves freely and without fear at all for their punishment. This is the reason why the ransom letter was so long and a bullshit. At the party, they put some kind of drugs in the John's drinking and a little bit in the Patsy's drinking or water, so when the Ramseys left the party for home JonBenet was not with them. They kept her there, John after the drink was not aware at all that his daughter was missing, while Patsy was forced to leave with the promise they would return her home soon or in the morning. This explain why John was sleeping that night and Patsy not. She had the same clothes of the party night because she never went to bed, she was waiting the return of her daughter. I think, the ransom letter was written at the party, maybe they gave it to Patsy before leaving the party or send it by somebody else much before 5 am, maybe around 2 am when the neighbors heard the scream, which was Patsy scream.

Why Patsy left the party without her daughter? Two reasons: they told her if not, they could kill JonBenet and Burke, and for both deaths was she who would have been blamed because they had her pad and her garrote. Maybe they also forced her to write the letter by herself, so if she would left only with Burke, they soon would return JonBenet home, because they needed JonBenet to sing and danse for them a little bit more.

But, JonBenet was killed, so around 2:00 am they send somebody to order Patsy to call 911 because JonBenet was kidnaped.Her scream was so strong, such that was heard from far. She tried to wake up John, ... I can't say when John woke up, but a little bit before 5 am I think. She told him what happened, also the ransom letter. After a conversation they have together, they knew very well who had their daughter, so they decided to call 911, also their friends. Patsy woke up Bruke. She was sure that he didn't recognize that his sister was missing the other night because he was sleeping in the car. So soon after police came she send him to their home's friend.

The police searched the house but he couldn't find anything because JonBenet was not there. They brought her back with an ambulance later, just before the dedective Linda ask John to go and search the house one more time. In reality, she said to John: "I had a call that JonBenet is in the basement, go and get her". So John, went straight to the basement to take his daughter, .... When he went upstairs with his dead daughter in his arms he saw the detective in her eyes, imagine the expression of his face, in that terrible way such that she was so much afraid he could kill her, so quickly she counted that she had 18 bullets in her pistol (her interview words), coincidentally with the first digits of the money required on the ransom letter ($118,000; of course she couldn't had counted 118 bullets, or 118,000 bullets in her pistol).

Everything else happened after that is known from writings, movies, videos...

So, knowing the situation and with who Was dealing, John wanted to leave as soon as possible to save his family, especially the innocent Burke, but he couldn't.

I agree. Kolar presents evidence pertaining to some theoretical 9 year old who might possibly have been sexually active and might possibly have had a perverse relation with his sister, but there is no evidence at all that Burke was anything like that. And certainly no evidence that JonBenet would have been willing to go along with it. A child like the one Kolar describes would have, as you say, been known to the neighborhood as a problem, and that would have been reported.

When I wrote that "I agree," I was responding to your first post, about Burke. I agree that he didn't molest or kill his sister. As for the following post, outlining your theory, all I can say is that it's interesting. You could write a novel based on that idea. But it's not really a theory of this case, because there's no evidence to support it. It's really just a fantasy. It fits some aspects of the case but doesn't fit many others. And as I said before, it's hard to believe that the Ramseys would have wanted to participate in a party on the night before their trip, since their flight was scheduled for something like 6 AM, and they would have needed some sleep.

But were they, or they weren't in that party?! Thanks that you stress out, that maybe they would have not wanted to participate in that party, but the truth and not my fantasy (as it is known) is that they participated it.

However, do you think your theory that John killed his daughter, planned to dispose her body, and the 911 call destroyed his plan is not a fantasy, maybe much more believable as a novel than mine?!

A man who can lead a big company, cannot lead his wife based on a plan made by himself!!!

Can you answer me, based on facts, why his friend called an ambulance when John found his daughter who was already dead for hours? And why the ambulance was there on that moment? Sorry my friend, but if i cannot use my fantasy over those facts, I cannot answer those two questions. Maybe, you can. My answer is:He wanted to justify the presence of the ambulance near the house. Now, what is yours?Moreover, using your fantasy (i don't have a problem with it), you say that after the 911 call he couldn't dispose the body because he was afraid the police could see him doing it. But, I think differently, that if it was so, the body of JonBenet it would have been already on the trunk of his car and not in the basement. Do you know my friend, that some facts states that Patsy had some gifts placed there for John's children?! So it was a possibility that Patsy without seen the ransom letter, could had an idea to go downstairs and take those package and get her daughter dead there. Look at the pictures of the basement, in the Kolar's novel or in the internet.Another fact about the police, they didn't arrive at Ramseys' house before 1pm because based on another fact they were in the meeting, all of them, such as anyone was available to go and back up Linda. By the way, is a fact that John left house and anybody don't know where he went about for 1 hour. That means no patrol of police on the streets, a second chance lost from John to get rid out of the dead body from the house, and make his plan of kidnaping a success. At least, to had put it in his private jet... Always, if the body would have been in his car.

I apologize, because I didn't realize at first that you were referring to the party at the White's. I thought you were talking about another party that took place at the Ramsey's house later on, in the middle of the night.

So now your theory makes a lot more sense to me.

Nevertheless, there's an awful lot in your theory that's based on what you think might have happened, and I don't see any real evidence of any of that. Just because certain things might have happened doesn't mean they actually did happen.

"However, do you think your theory that John killed his daughter, planned to dispose her body, and the 911 call destroyed his plan is not a fantasy, maybe much more believable as a novel than mine?!"

My theory is based on the facts of the case, not what I think might have happened. The facts tell us that there could have been no intruder. And, judging from your theory I suppose you'd agree to that. The facts also tell us that Patsy is the one who called the police, NOT John. And I'm sure you'd agree to that. No fantasy so far. So -- so far so good, right?

Now, based on those facts, we can conclude that both Patsy and John could not have conspired with one another to write the ransom note and stage a kidnapping. Even if this was done with the aid of "friends" and even if their friends actually wrote the note, it doesn't matter. Because if both of them were aware that the note was phoney, and not from a real kidnapper, they would not have agreed to call the police while at the same time knowing the body was in the house. Because once the body is found, the police will realize that there was no kidnapping and at that point the note accomplishes nothing for anybody. All it is at that point is evidence pointing to whoever wrote it.

This is why I can't accept your theory -- although it is certainly interesting and does make some sense for sure. It's not as much of a fantasy as I first thought. But it IS based largely on conjecture and not any known facts.

What you say about John putting the body in the trunk of his car makes a lot of sense for sure. However, it's possible the body was in the trunk and that he moved it at some time that morning into the wine cellar. Because obviously if it had been found in his car that would have been it for him. It's also possible that he was planning on getting it into the trunk, but decided to store it temporarily in the wine cellar until he'd been able to get Patsy out of the house. Just because it wasn't found in the trunk of his car doesn't mean he wasn't planning on dumping it later that day or the next night. That was the whole point of the note, to give him time to get rid of the body and give him an excuse NOT to call the police.

to the post above docg, i'm think i read somewhere, that JR and PR dropped some presents off somewhere on way home from party. And someone stated that jbr was in fact in the back of the car. i may be wrong

Anonymous, I am fascinated by your scenario. I have often wondered who the other dinner guests were, why the Ramsey's would accept invitation when travel plans were so early, why their friend's guests accompanied them to the Ramsey's home after such a tragedy and why Ramsey's would allow B to be taken away without police protection; also why pics were away from crime scene and in a meeting.

Something else that's interesting is that in his new book John makes almost no mention of his son Burke. It seems like they have agreed to keep their distance from each other and this indeed suggests that Burke suspects his father of this murder.

No question Burke's relation with his father seems strained. But there's no telling why. He may suspect his father but I doubt it, because his father was "ruled out," remember? But his father may have pressured him to keep his mouth shut about certain things, and that could be bothering him.

Yes -- you're more articulate than I am. That's what I meant basically: Burke may not KNOW anything or even CONSCIOUSLY suspect his father, but there may be something "unspoken" between them and John is careful to keep his distance in order not to stimulate any emotions in Burke which may make conscious any unconscious suspicion.

Remember, John and Patsy were worried that at "forty years old" Burke would begin to process the trauma of that event. It's very possible a psychiatrist did indeed tell them this, and John may be worried on some level that his son will have an epiphany. Even if Burke has no "evidence" as to his father's guilt, he has seen him up and close and personal for so many years and he may understand his father's psyche in a way that leads him to be suspicious of him...

Yes, well said. I'd be surprised if Burke doesn't have some suspicion on some level. If not, he'd have publicly stood with John in the same way Patsy did. If the case ever goes to trial, Burke will no doubt be subpoenaed and it will be very interesting to hear what he has to say.

I'm not sure there's a good reason to expect public comments from Burke. I don't really hear the Kennedy children debating who killed their father, whether or not there was a 2nd gunman behind the grassy knoll, etc. I bet most of us on the various JBR forums think about the case 10 times more than Burke does. The only thing I read into Burke's silence is that it's a painful subject that he doesn't particularly want to talk about.

I don't agree that JR would be afraid to call 911 if BR was the chronic abuser. In such a scenario JR would know he didn't do anything. He'd know the evidence couldn't point to him. Sure, the cops/doctors at ER would have their suspicions, but saving his daughter's life would be a bigger priority than dealing with misplaced suspicion. It takes actual evidence to convict. Her injuries, by themselves, do not tell us who did it. IMO if JR was not the abuser, there would definitely have been a 911 call once the parents found out JBR was injured.

I think BDI only makes sense (and only a little sense) if JR was the chronic abuser. With digital penetration it might be hard to link it to him anyway. The only real fear he may have had is that the wiping of the body was inadequate to remove all evidence of ......whatever might have been done.

Yeah, I basically agree. I was just trying to come up with a scenario that might possibly make sense if BDI. It's a stretch though, because regardless of the circumstances, if one child injures another the parents first thought will be to call for help, NOT stage an elaborate coverup. Looks very much to me as though John did it all. If he wants us to think otherwise, fine, let him have his day in court.

No. As a mother, you have just lost your daughter--your instinct would be to preserve the one child you have left--even if that child was guilty of the inadvertent killing of your daughter. You don't have time to discover whether or not it was deliberate or actually accidental--you can't turn your son over to the law who will have no pity on him; his life will be ruined as well as your reputations. Also, your husband lost his other daughter four years ago. Would losing both of his young children now, one to death the other to the judicial system, be too much for him to take? I think Burke was guilty of the killing; Patsy was guilty of writing the ransom note; and both she and John were guilty of the cover-up. God forgive me for passing judgment when I don't have all the facts, but as a mother this is the only scenario I can devise that would tempt me to be complicit in the cover up of the tragic death of a beloved child. If there was no outsider involved--this has to be what happened.

I agree. The only way these two would cover this up is to protect their son. I believe he did it as well. Burke was probably very jealous of JonBenet as she received all the attention from her parents and everyone else. Maybe he tortured her out of jealousy and it went to far that night. Plus he was on the computer a lot and could find out how to do a lot of things. I read where his fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple. Is that true?

Sorry, but I must repeat what I've written many times. There is no evidence linking Burke to any part of this crime, no reason to suspect him, and very good reason to wonder how such a young, frail child could deliver a single blow so powerful as to fell a grown man, in the words of one of the investigators. The obvious suspect from the first was John Ramsey, because he was by far the most likely of those in the house to have both sexually molested JonBenet and then, out of fear of exposure, murder her. This was the original police theory, but when the decision to "rule him out" as writer of the note came down, the focus turned to Patsy. Burke was NEVER considered a serious suspect by anyone involved in the investigation other than Kolar, and his theory was immediately and for good reason rejected.

Yes, Burke's fingerprints were apparently found on the bowl of pineapple. So were Patsy's. All that means is that they had handled it at some point since it had been washed. It does NOT connect him with JonBenet that night nor does it necessarily connect him even with the pineapple, which of course had NO prints on it for obvious reasons.

If JR is the killer, how could he possibly get his wife to go along with the cover up? Just doesn't sound right to me. Unless, of course, he told PR that he caught BR in the act of killing his little sister. But why not implicate his son rather than himself? If he is the sociopath he's portrayed to be, what would he have against his son taking the blame?Also, why was JBR taken to the doctor 33 times in 2 years? If PR knew JR was abusing their daughter and for some reason had made the decision to hide his crime, then I doubt she would have continued to take JBR to the Dr.God, all so complicated!

I agree that Patsy would never have gone along with a coverup, however it seems clear she never suspected John. It's important to realize that while Patsy was still under heavy sedation John was arranging for handwriting "experts" to rule him out as writer of the note, a verdict that has NEVER been questioned EVER by ANYONE investigating the case. So if it convinced law enforcement why wouldn't it have convinced Patsy? If John didn't write the note then as far as she was concerned it could only have been written by an intruder. So if John were to ask her to lie or stretch the truth about something she might well have taken that as an attempt to simply get the authorities off their backs. Don't forget this has always been John's theme: the cops are convinced "we" did it and will do anything to nail "us."

I wish I could remember the female officers name. But she said that when John brought Jon Benet into the living-room, and laid her on the floor the officer leaned over the body, and John was right there, she looked into John's eyes, and knew she was looking at the killer. Those first instinct, that " she knew " really struck me, as being a good indicator as to who killed that precious little girl.

I remember that quote too. It's from an interview that you can find on youtube of Linda Arndt of the Boulder Police. She claims, "I had non-verbal eye exchange [with John Ramsey] that I will never forget." Funny, I too recall that she said she knew she was looking in the eyes of a killer. However, that language is not in the interview I watched.

"So. I ask you. If you are on a jury in a case where a young girl was sexually molested and murdered, and the only possible suspects are her mother, her nine year old brother and her middle aged father, which would you say was the most likely culprit?"

If I was on a jury and no evidence could be presented that linked JR to the molestation, I'd think that was reasonable doubt.

It would make a difference because the likelihood that he and not Burke was the attacker would constitute only one part of a very powerful circumstantial case. If it can be established that he is the most likely to have written the note, the most likely to have broken the window, the most likely to have hidden the body, and that he lied about key aspects of the case, then the likelihood that he and not his son molested and killed his daughter would be one more nail in his coffin.

My apologies DocG. Didn't notice there were posts in July. Just catching up on them now.

What you say explains a lot about JRs bizarre behaviour that morning and I can very well see it going down like you say. Just having a hard time believing he would let Patsy make the 911 call if it was so crucial that it not be made. If I'm John I grab Patsy by the arm and say, "Look, they say they are going to kill her if you call the police. You cannot call the police yet".

I've thought a lot about that issue. It's possible they had a long argument about it, and Patsy just decided to call anyhow, and outran him to the phone. As I recall, there was an initial 911 hangup, which suggests John might have initially forced her to hang up and then relented when he realized the call would be traced and police would be showing up.

It's possible also that Patsy just reacted instinctively, without reading the note in full, as she's testified. She could have caught John off guard. To be credible he'd have to pretend to read the note first, but she might not have given him sufficient time to do that.

We really don't know what happened. But it seems likely that if John wanted the call made he would not have relied on the obviously hysterical Patsy to make it. For whatever reason she did make the call and from the tone of her voice, she was genuinely alarmed, which tells me it had to have been her idea.

You're jumping around, or else I'm not following. You asked us to imagine a BDI situation in which JR was not the long term abuser. In the scenario presented BR is the long term abuser.

So, if BR hit's JB with the maglite, JR need not fear anything from calling 911. Not even the vaginal injuries. Since JR did not actually cause the injuries (in the presented scenario) there is no evidence that could point to him. Just speculation, which isn't enough to convict, or even indict. If he calls 911 the note is never written. The garrote is never applied. The window is never broken. There is no circumstantial case, powerful or otherwise. Have I missed something?

OK, I see your point. Nevertheless, assuming he called 911 immediately after the incident, then no, there'd be no direct evidence pointing obviously to him (leaving aside the fiber evidence as I agreed to do -- for now), but as I've been arguing, the police would be much more likely to attribute the vaginal injuries to him than to his frail 9 year old son, who certainly gave no indication of being sexually mature. Which means they'd be far more likely to suspect him, and not Burke, of killing JonBenet. Which would mean first degree murder, not just a spat between two kids.

Assuming he was aware of the vaginal injuries, then even if he were totally innocent, it's possible to see why he might be reluctant to call 911. I'm not saying that's what happened or that's what he actually decided, I'm just saying that as a hypothetical we can't totally rule it out (without more evidence).

Just my opinion but Burke easily could've killed his sister.When I was 9 another 9 yrs old boy molested me. I was afraid of him and did not tell. So yes Burke could have gotten mad enough to kill her after he molested her. I get this because Burke had behavior problems, at least I read that. As an adult he's just odd, weird, a recluse sort of.John Ramseys sweater fibers were found on JBR crotch, which could have got there when he picked her up to bring her upstairs when he found her....so many scenarios.

One thing that doesn't make sense with regard to the 911 call: Right after the end of the call, when the 911 dispatcher says, "Patsy..." 4x, you can clearly hear a child's voice saying something in the background. The voice asks at least two questions - although, to me, the words are not decipherable. Since we know JonBenet was already dead by that time, and Burke was the only living child left in the Ramsey house, it must logically be him. (Unless, as some have suspected, Burke had a friend spend the night.) Assuming it WAS Burke, and that, as you believe, he had no part in JonBenet's death or the staging, why would all the Ramseys - John, Patsy, and Burke - have lied, and claimed that Burke was NOT awake at the time the 911 call was made? Patsy and John stated Burke was not awake that morning until they woke him up to go to the White's house. (Later, Burke claimed he was awake in bed, but pretended to be asleep.) Why did they feel the need to lie about this, if Burke was not involved? It wouldn't have made any difference then.

Ok, first off I'll say that I've listened many times to that recording and yes, at the end I can hear something that might possibly be Patsy saying "Help me Jesus, help me Jesus, help me." But which could also be something else entirely and possibly not even her but some crosstalk. Other than that, I hear nothing. I certainly don't hear a child's voice or John's voice and even if some day I do manage to hear something like that I'm sorry but from my experience such sounds could be almost anything at all.

There was a case a few years ago where a couple were being recorded, the prosecution wrote up a transcript of what they were supposedly saying, but when they played it for the judge, he heard nothing of the sort and threw out the case.

We are on very shaky ground when we try to tease questionable messages out of borderline technology.

Now, even supposing Burke's voice could be heard on that recording, it could mean all sorts of things. As far as I'm concerned neither John nor Patsy has given us an accurate account of what happened prior to the 911 call. So given all the many possibilities of interpreting that call and the likelihood of us simply hearing what we want to hear or what we expect to hear, I don't see any point in drawing much in the way of conclusions from it. Nor do I see any need to do that. If we stick with the undisputed facts of the case we already have a very clear picture of what happened.

First of all: I've listened many times to that tape and even used special software to enhance it and I've never heard anything remotely like any voice saying anything like that. All I could hear was something that possibly sounded like Patsy saying "help me Jesus" a few times, but could also just have been crosstalk.

Secondly, even if Burke was present and did say that or something like it, so what? All it would tell us is that he was up at that time rather than asleep as was originally claimed.

One thing that I think is pretty clear in all of this is that, if this theory about John is correct, then Burke MUST know. Not have vague suspicions or uneasy questions, but KNOW.

The reason I say this is because Burke knows beyond a shadow of a doubt whether or not that basement window was broken prior to that night. I'm guessing he had been down in the basement and in that room countless times, and he would know if had been broken some summer beforehand, like the Ramseys claim.

If he had never seen that broken window before, then Burke knows that his father outright lied about it. Maybe John could convince his mentally fragile and drugged-up wife that he needed to lie about it to protect them and to make sure the authorities didn't stop investigating the intruder angle. And MAYBE John could somehow convince a 9 year old Burke that lying about the window was necessary. But at some point, Burke must have put two and two together and realized that John lied about the window because he was covering up what really happened.

Maybe Burke doesn't want to come out now, so long after it happened, and expose his father. Maybe he believes it was an accident. Who knows? But my feeling is that we won't see any big progress or breakthroughs on this case until Burke comes forward someday and destroys John's story about the window. Hopefully we won't have to wait until John dies for that to happen, but it wouldn't surprise me if we do.

I'm afraid you're right. Burke must know the truth about that window. But don't forget, he's also been fed the UNTRUTH about John being ruled out as writer of the note. My guess is that he, like so many others, might have suspected his mother of writing it. But would have been confused further when the "touch DNA" results came rolling in and "the Ramseys" were exonerated. So my guess is that at this point he doesn't know what to think. Just like so many others, including Lacy, Kolar, Beckner, etc.

He could be the key to this case if he chose to come forward with what he knows about the window, yes. But he might also want to lie about it, to protect his Dad. Just like his Mom did.

I feel very sorry for Burke, because he too is a victim and will have to carry this MONSTROSITY with him for the rest of his life.

Good point about Burke's knowledge of the broken window. He isn't the only one who would know. What about the housekeeper, her husband and the gardener(s)? Surely, someone would have seen the broken window.

I had an interesting, though admittedly outlandish, thought. The simple theory set forth by DocG on this blog makes a great deal of sense, and I think it answers all the questions more satisfactorily than any other theory I've read about. Kolar, on the other hand, points the finger at Burke, despite all the questions and issues that theory leaves us. I haven't read Kolar's book, but it sounds like he doesn't even consider John as a potential suspect, presumably because of the handwriting experts who ruled John out.

As discussed in this very blog, this doesn't make any sense. The analysis of handwriting is not an exact science. So-called experts can have varying opinions of the same samples. So why would investigators in general, and Kolar specifically (who is very much against the intruder theory), never reexamine or reconsider the decision to rule out John as the writer of the note? With all the inconsistent statements and questionable behaviors that cast a great deal of suspicion on John, why don't they look harder at the evidence and consider that which seems to make the most sense?

Kolar was a detective and a lead investigator in this case. He surely has had a great deal of training and experience. He must not be an idiot. Surely he would know about the potential problems with handwriting analysis. How could he be so blind to (what seems to be) the obvious truth?

Well, what if he's actually not ignoring John? What if he sees things the same way as DocG? What if his book is just a clever rouse?

Presumably, law enforcement does not have enough evidence (in their minds) to bring charges against John, or they would have done so already (I hope). After so much time has passed since the crime, they must know that they're unlikely to get any more evidence. So how can there be any break in the case? They need someone to come forward who has firsthand knowledge that he or she has been holding back. Patsy is dead. That leaves only Burke.

Like these comments already mention, Burke must know something. Whether it's about the basement window, something he saw or heard that night, or even things his parents told him after the fact, he very likely has information that could blow the case wide open. But for some many years, he has remained silent. So what's the best way to get him to talk? He seems unwilling or unable to throw his parents under the bus, for one reason or another, but what if he needed to come forward to clear his own name?

So maybe Kolar wrote this book in an attempt to turn public opinion on the matter. Maybe he wanted the prevailing theory on the case to become this theory that Burke was responsible. And if it were to become the generally accepted theory, then even if nobody could prosecute Burke, such public sentiment certainly could begin to have an effect on his personal life. Right now it seems like he can live quietly and put all of this behind him, but what if that changed? Friends, family, girlfriends, co-workers, acquaintances, etc. might all start to look at him and treat him differently, if this book and this theory picked up enough steam. And under that kind of pressure and scrutiny, you think he might change his mind and come forward with what he knows just to clear his own name? If law enforcement has no other way to get more evidence against John, why not try to indirectly coerce Burke into coming forward?

Again, I don't really think this is the book's purpose, and I know it would raise a whole host of libel/lawsuit issues if it ever came out that this happened. And the book doesn't seem to be gaining enough traction to significantly sway public opinion. However, given how bizarre it is that Kolar ignores John as a suspect, I thought it would be pretty cool if this was what was really going on. But I guess this is the kind of thing that happens in movies and TV, but not real life. Sigh.

You know, I had more or less the same thought. And the same hesitation about taking it too seriously. The book could be read as an attempt to draw Burke out from his long silence and force him to tell what he knows. Let's hope it has that effect, regardless of whether that's what Kolar intended.

Burke has been able to move under the radar from the beginning. Kolar presents good circumstantial evidence of Burke's guilt. The Kolar theory is plausible, a good theory, as we know that insultingly ludicrous ransom note was definitely written by Patsy. While it may be hard to believe that a 9 year old (he was to be 10 years old in a couple of weeks) can do such things, they clearly can do such things, as Kolar so ably proves (the numerous convictions of 9 and 10 year olds for sexual assault). Burke may not be able to be prosecuted for something he did when he was 9 years old, but I'll lay odds on the probability that we have not heard the last from Burke - that we will read about him in the newspapers and it will be about the Jon Benet case.

Kolar does NOT present circumstantial evidence of Burke's guilt. There is no such evidence. All Kolar does is argue that a child of Burke's age COULD possibly be sexually active and could possibly be strong enough to both assault and kill his sister. Evidence that guilt is possible is NOT evidence of guilt. It's certainly very far even from the standards of probable cause. When considering Burke, Kolar goes very far off the beam, into something approaching Lou Smit lala land. I'll credit him with making a pretty good case that Burke MIGHT have assaulted and killed JonBenet, and that possibility should not be totally discounted. But there is no evidence of that, not even circumstantial evidence. It's pure speculation.

And no, I can't agree that the note was written by Patsy. The sort of "evidence" that's convinced most amateurs on the Internet meets no scientific standard and could easily be due to cherry picking. This is what I'm writing about currently, so you might want to check my most recent posts.

S.B.T.C; what were the names of Burke's friends? The B could be for Burke. Is it possible Burke and his buddies wrote the ransom note as a game during an earlier get together (I thought I read they were into playing spy games, etc) and then one of his pals (maybe a couple of years older than Burke) snuck back that night to act it out? I find it strange that Burke has never publicly shared any of his memories of that day. He surely has some.

You know, my first theory was that Burke could have done it all, including the ransom note, which would have been intended mostly to put his parents off the scent. That would explain the 911 call, because both parents would at that time have been clueless as to Burke's involvement and taken the note at face value.

It wasn't until I finally had a chance to read the note that it became obvious it could not have been written by a 9 year old. Could it have been written by one of Burke's older friends, however? someone who Burke let into the house? someone who could have sexually assaulted and murdered his sister? someone he was and is trying to protect? That's a very interesting question.

I very much doubt the note was written earlier and brought into the house. It was written on a pad from inside the house, and was never folded, not even creased, so it was never in anyone's pocket.

While this is a very interesting theory, I would have to reject it based on all the evidence we have of clearly devious behavior and testimony by John. As noted by Kolar and others (including myself, going way back), John changed his version of what happened at various times, first saying the doors were all locked, then claiming some were in fact open; he claimed to have closed the basement window yet told no one about finding it open for months; same with the "suspicious" suitcase under the window, which he initially failed to report. His story about breaking the window earlier is clearly a fabrication, as demonstrated by my earlier posts on this topic, which tells us he must have broken it the night of the crime, to stage a phoney intruder breakin -- and then changed his mind after his plan was blown by Patsy's 911 call.

While John might possibly have been willing to risk the electric chair to cover for his son (though I strongly doubt it), I see no reason for him to take such a huge risk to protect one of Burke's friends.

Moreover, there is simply no evidence that any person other than a family member was in the house that night. No unidentified prints were found and anyone Burke might have associated with would certainly have been tested for a DNA match. Regardless of any such possibility, John remains most likely by far to have both molested and killed his daughter and written the "ransom" note, so the preponderance of evidence points to him and he's the one that should be brought to trial.

If at that point he and/or Burke would want to reveal the presence of another person in the house that night, they would certainly be free to do that, and I would certainly be interested in learning who that person might be. Until that point, however, I see no reason to give John a "pass." He's in this up to his eyeballs.

I've followed and read about this case for many many years, but I'm one of those people who's never had a real opinion on guilt. But I gotta say you've converted me to a JDI theorist, DocG.

My problems with both PDI and BDI have always been that they've never accounted for plain and simple human behavior. The idea that Patsy flew into a rage because JonBenet told her mother she no longer wanted to participate in beauty pageants is beyond ridiculous. Patsy Ramsey may have been silly and over the top about pageantry and turning her daughter into a pretty pretty princess, but she was a fully functional human being. Seriously, Disney villains aren't even that vapid and stupid.

As for freaking out about bed-wetting, that always seems to me to be a go-to cop theory. I've never, never, never ever read about a case where the homicidal mother's breaking point was bed wetting. (I'm sure someone will point out a case where that ACTUALLY happened, but I have yet to come across one.) But as soon as a detective discovers a history of bed wetting, BINGO! There's our motive! As the parent of a bed wetter and also someone who loses my temper every night because of it, I promise if a horrible accident occurred due to a short fuse no one in his or her right mind will then garrotte a six-year-old and stage a fanciful kidnapping when the very first thing anyone would do is call an ambulance and say she fell.

And to be fair to the BDI theory, I don't for one minute doubt that a nine-year-old could sexually molest his younger sister. I also don't doubt that a nine-year-old could, yes, swing a bat hard enough to crack a skull. Even a skinny and frail nine-year-old. The only way for BDI to make sense is for the parents to cover it up. And I just don't see that happening. Not because JonBenet was the apple of their eye and the family star. I'm sure they loved Burke just as much as they loved JonBenet, even if JonBenet was a favorite. Any parent, regardless of their station in life as pillars of a community, would call a freakin ambulance. No one this side of reality would automatically jump to "Oh no! This ruins Burke's chances for getting into law school! Quick! You strangle our six-year-old daughter while I write a three page ransom note!"

If Burke by accident or design mortally wounded his sister he wasn't exactly going to spend the rest of his life in prison. I realize that maybe Patsy and John weren't exactly brushed up on Colorado juvenile law, but common sense tells you that a nine-year-old little boy wouldn't be prosecuted. That just seems like common sense. And I think the idea that it would mar the image of the Ramsey's perfect family is asinine. These aren't cartoon characters, they're people.

I completely agree. The absurdities of BDI and PDI should have been obvious from the start, but, hey, John was "ruled out" and clearly there was no intruder, so the investigators must have felt backed into a corner, with no other recourse.

patsy ramsey wrote that ransom note. chet ubowski of the CBI thinks she did, so does linguistics expert don foster. i think there was 5 experts who all agreed she probably wrote it. even the ramsey's own experts could not rule her out.

Linguistics "expert" Foster is a fraud. He "staked his reputation" on Patsy's innocence, but the Ramseys ignored him so he took a closer look and lo and behold, decided she was guilty after all. So much for the reputation he so eagerly staked! His attribution of a poem to Shakespeare also turned out to be wrong, as he finally was forced to admit, after having ridiculed his critics for years.

The opinions of so-called "experts" are just that: opinions. Sorry, but I prefer to focus on the facts.

I keep going back and forth on this but I am no forensic scientist but you don't need to be to know that there was NO intruder, can't believe people still buy that crap, sorry but please come on. It was a family member, first I thought it was Pasty but given time to think, i've changed my mind and I thinik it is either the father or more likely the brother but she definitely covered it up. There can be obscene jealously between siblings much more than between parent and child. Most likely scenario, he killed her out of rage, and they covered it up. Once again I do not believe for 1 second there was an intruder!! I truely now believe it was Burke, motive, the oldest motive known to man..... jealously!

It's interesting that people are searching for a motive that makes sense. Some killers claim they were bored and decided to kill. Patsy knew of the abuse beforehand. Why did she call the doctor three times on Dec. 17th? Patsy's style of writing and use of punctuation marks leads me to believe she wrote that note. I believe John is responsible for strangling her. Patsy probably delivered the final blow.

You are making unwarranted assumptions. There is no reason to believe Patsy knew about JonBenet being abused. We don't know why she called the doctor, but according to his testimony he never found anything suspicious and if Patsy had called him because she suspected abuse, he would certainly have conducted a thorough vaginal exam.

I've already demonstrated that Patsy's writing is nothing like the writing on the note (John's, on the other hand, IS). And I have no idea what punctuation marks you're referring to -- unless it's the use of exclamation points. Well, lots of people use exclamation points. That's not really evidence.

" Well, lots of people use exclamation points. That's not really evidence. "

Maybe not, but 53 other points of similarity definitely suggest that Patsy was the writer.

But you need "John wrote the RN" and "Patsy could not be in on it and at the same time dial 911" to make your theory work, which I understand, however both assumptions have huge holes in them. In the end, John Ramsey committing a premeditated or even accidental killing of JonBenet is very unlikely.

I'm really getting tired of repeating myself. The "53 other points of similarity" mean nothing in the absence of a set of control samples, because someone else's writings might show 1000 points of similarity, for all we know. One of the points of similarity noted by one of Darnay's "experts" was the fact that the second stroke of a letter "x" was lower than the first in both Patsy's hand and the note. Well, that's a point of similarity that could be found in almost anyone's writing, if you looked hard enough. Another point of similarity was margin drift -- despite the fact that the margins in the note are perfectly vertical -- no drift.

Darnay's people were simply looking for anything they could find to link Patsy to the note. Their findings mean nothing. If you doubt me, read my posts titled "The Experts See Patsy."

Marian:A few years ago I read an article that Johns Ramsays daughter who worked for delta airlines was on hjer way home to see john and patsy ramsey to convert the family member who may have been molesting her little sister jon benet. Unfortunately we will never know because beth john ramseys daughter died in a car accident we will never know? Was beth molested by the same family member. Was the car accident arranged did someone arrange beth to die in the car crash, Was John Ramsey responsible for beths death

When new DNA evidence appeared in 2008, the DA at the time, Mary Lacy, decided that this evidence was proof that an intruder attacked JonBenet, and wrote a letter to the Ramseys, apologizing and stating that she had exonerated them. Many law enforcement professionals have challenged her decision, as it was based on a superficial understanding of what the DNA evidence might mean. The lead detective on the case at the time, James Kolar, wrote a book in which, among other things, he also challenges that decision, revealing that DNA from several unknown individuals was found on the body, which is not surprising since DNA can be innocently transferred in many different ways. From statements he's made it seems clear that the current DA, Stanley Garnett, does not accept Lacy's verdict and remains open to the possibility that one or both of the Ramseys is involved. For my take on the DNA "evidence" see: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-touch-dna.html

Legally, no DA has the power to exonerate anyone, so Lacy's decision applies only to her and has no binding authority as far as the possibility of future prosecution is concerned.

Their has been rumor that this murder was part of a Satanic Cult Ritual. Even though it is very hard for average people to understand Satanism, the people who are deeply into it find it that sacraficing a human is normal in their beliefs, but also understand that society does not believe it and their are laws. So I believe that the Ramsey family in particular John was deeply involved with the sacraficing of his daughter and his son was part of the ritual. This was planned for a while, and Christmas 1996 was when it was decided this will happen.The whole murder and the way she was murdered has ritualistic murder written all over it. I do believe 100% it was a satanic ritualistic murder. I do believe it was more like the family (in particular the father) who orchestrated this ritualistic murder, but can not say 100%. I feel 95% family 5% intruder theory

I see no signs of anything "satanic" anywhere in the crime scene, so I'd have to disagree. Of course, anything is possible, but there's no evidence of that sort of activity and also it seems really unlikely that this family would have planned any sort of ritual on the night before they were scheduled to get up early in the AM for a flight out of town.

Since JonBenet was found dead home, then we look to find the killer at home. And we call this a right thing. Why not at the party?! The most important clue are Patsy's clothes. For years people thought that was Patsy who did it, but how is possible that she used some movie parts to write the ransom letter and she didn't use the most important movie's part: the killer change the clothes. Moreover, it is not easy what she did, her clothes could have been dirty, or creasy, or torn apart, or ... Do you think is easy to kill?! JonBenet was not a doll, was a human being who struggled for her life.So if the crime happened at home, from family members, Patsy never would not have been wearing the same clothes. The same thing about the other objects of the crime that appointed directly to her.

So, as always, my starting to find the killer, or killers is at the party. JonBenet died there, definitely for me. And the owner of that house, John's friend knows everything, why he doesn't speak and tell the truth? He is a very important witness, because he was present at 3 key moments: party, checking the basement in the early morning, and when the body of JonBenet was found from her father. And another fact that is bothering me, Bruke went to his house after the 911 call. Why he took Bruke with him? Was he that offered that help, but who told him to do so?!Somebody can say, it was Patsy who asked him to send Bruke with him. I say never, a mother who just lost a child would leave another child to leave home. She was manipulated to permit his departure from home, from her friend. Moreover, this friend later becomes a suspect from Ramseys, and an enemy of them. He is not the killer, but he knows who killed JonBenet.

Since JonBenet was found dead at home, we have to think that parents are the monsters, not outsiders. Based on some stupid "facts" that appoint to members of family, now we have to discus that a 9 year boy, maybe did it, because when he was 5 years old he also hit his sister on the head. So in the Ramseys house, once upon a time, lived the beauty and the beast!!

So check the party members, my friends, do you know their names? Are you sure that JonBenet didn't ate pineapples in the party? Do you know the exact time of JonBenet's death? Surely, that she died on December 25, 1996 because it's written in the grave stone, but in what hour, minutes, seconds?!

OK, you are referring to the party at the White's, the party they attended before going home that night. Sorry but I was confused and thought you meant a party that took place after they came home. So you are saying JonBenet might have been killed at the White's and was already dead when carried into the Ramsey house. Patsy did say she was out cold, or "zonked," so that possibility occurred to me as well.

And I agree that if Patsy killed her, she would have changed her clothes, yes. But if JonBenet was killed at the party, then John, Patsy and Burke would have known about it, and that does not fit the facts of this case as I outlined them in my first two posts. If they all knew what happened to JonBenet then they also would have known that the note was designed as staging to point to an intruder rather than to those actually responsible. But if that were the case, then they would not have decided to call the police first thing in the morning with the body still hidden in the house. They would have waited until they'd had a chance to dump the body and THEN they would have called the police. See my first two posts for the details.

If you read my theory, Burke didn't know and doesn't know anything what's happen that night, he was sleeping, and he was the child that they put in the bed, not JonBenet. Also, John couldn't recall anything from that night because he was drugged. Maybe, he started to misbehave under the effect of drug, and as Patsy was a woman that never wanted to get a bad eye in front of other people (this is the reason why many people accuse this family of trying to cover up for each other), wanted to leave the party and go home. So the plan was, that Patsy would leave without JonBenet, the " entertainer" who sang and danced there. But, they never thought that Patsy would protested to leave her daughter there alone. If Patsy would have been left in peace, then the Ramseys never would have been suspects for anything, the story of JonBenet would have been a missing child, and never would have been found, a child kidnaped at the party, that's it. So they changed the plane, to play more and entertained themselves much more by causing more sufferings to Ramseys, makes them under suspicious, and also for 17 years they are enjoying a lot how the public is accusing them as a family of murders. As the public is more acceptable in the idea that if a crime happens at home, even the clues that appoint to the family members are bullshits, is done by the family, the criminals will kill without fear that their crimes and their plotted "proofs" against them will never be discovered.You are asking me, why John and Patsy couldn't talk about when they knew the truth, and my answer is they sacrificed themselves for the sake of Bruke. Who killed one child, easily would have killed the other. Even today, in this moment. Maybe, this is the reason John is staying in distance from his son. However, this is only my theory, I do not pretend to know the truth. Just ideas, imagination, fantasy, but I would never said a fiction.

Your ideas are very interesting, but even you have to admit that they are based on conjecture not facts. For example, there is no evidence that John or anyone else was drugged. It's possible. But that doesn't mean it happened. Nor does it even mean it's likely to have happened, because we have no reason at all to suspect that anything suspicious happened at the White's house that night. And you can be sure that possibility was investigated and the people at that party were questioned pretty thoroughly.

Your problem seems to be that you are unwilling to admit to yourself that someone like John Ramsey could deliberately molest and murder his child. And yet this is the sort of thing we see in a great many cases down through the years. In fact when a child is murdered, the parents are considered the most likely suspects and in most cases one or both of them turn out to have been involved.

Suppose that was John who killed JonBenet, and suppose that a few day before that he started to abuse her sexually, why he killed her that night and not on those previous days? So, do I have not the right to think the reason was the party? Maybe he drank there and didn't have himself under control? You say that there is not any fact that John was drunk or drugged. Did anybody checked him about that, in order to have a fact for yes or no?You say that there is a fact, no intruders. Then, problem solved. John, or Patsy are the killers. But, the private detective got a fact that there was an intruder who left his/her footprint on that cellar, also the DNA of a stranger...what we have to do with these facts, to ignore them only to accept that it was John or Patsy? Moreover, the window broken from inside, while John said he broke it before 1 year from outside. Now, if John had a plan for intruder who kidnaped JohnBenet, why he had to say that. Do I have a right to think that John was not in his senses, because instead of helping himself in his theory, he did the opposite? Do you think an educated person like John doesn't know the difference when a window is broken from two different directions and in two very far periods of time?On the other side, it's a fact as you also say, that it was Patsy who call 911 and not John, why she did it and not John. In any situation, a wife ask her husband to call the police or to judge what is the best way to call or to wait for the phone call from kidnapers, especially when the life of the child is at risk. Moreover, if John wanted to call a police, a mother would prefer to die then to leave him to do that phone call. So based on facts, why I have not the right to judge by the rules of the real life?! However, you forget the fact that Patsy confessed that after she got the ransom letter she went to John's room and not at the phone. Based on your theory, was not John expected and be ready when Patsy could found the letter to avoid the 911 call, to fulfil his plan?

There's a difference between him being drugged and being drunk. Sure he could have been drunk. But I don't see that this matters much.

And of course you have the right to think whatever you want to think. So do I. If you want answers to your questions you're going to have to read at least the first few posts on this blog where I lay out my theory and try to answer some of the more common questions. And if you have a theory of your own maybe you should start your own blog and publish it there.

So many times you are saying to me that your thinking could have happened, because the were supposed to happen at home and you are basing them on facts, on the other side you don't give explanation at all why Patsy had wearing the same clothes of the night of the party, which is a fact. You say that John wanted to be him to find the body not anybody else, and you don't mention another fact that it was Linda who asked John to search the house, and not him asking if he could searched the house. Also, you don't give any explanation why the detective who was there to monitor the phone call when the kidnapers would call John, since the ransom letter was addressed to John not to Patsy, asked him to leave and not to be close to her. Why she didn't do her job correctly?! You mentioned the blanket, and in your theory you says that John had a plan for kidnaping, why he would leave the blanket next to JohnBenet? If John wanted to satisfy himself with his daughter, and everything went wrong, in which part of the house this could have happened, because I don't think that the floor of the basement is a pleasant place for a rich man who had a huge and commode house? In every comment of mine, I'm referring to facts and give my idea based on those facts. Why what I think could have happened are conjectures and couldn't happened because they are events not inside the house? I want to see the video of the party, I want to see what JonBenet, Bruke, Patsy, John, and any other people behaved there? Do you think a big party didn't have a cameraman? Or pictures?! Didn't Patsy filmed her family there? Anybody of us do this when we go to a party, and of course that Patsy would have done that. Everybody of us in this site, are using our thinkings to explain things, because we are dealing with a normal family which had a hard incident, not with serial killers. On the other side, I'm trying to find serial pervert(s) who can be there on December 25, 1996 and who can be killer(s) of JonBenet. And you are telling me that for this case, I don't have facts in order to look for. What do you call a fact? Because John is the killer is not a fact, you think could be a fact, as I think for others.

I'm sorry but beyond what I've already written, both in responding to your comments and also on this blog, I can't help you. I try to answer all reasonable questions here, but many of your questions are hard to understand and many others have already been answered but since my answers don't satisfy you, you keep repeating them.

I know that my English is not so good, but I do not think that you opened this blog only for English speakers or the followers of your theory, if so, sorry I will not comment anymore. By the way, I've decided already to not comment anymore, but for the sake of Patsy, I'm doing it one more time.In your theory you submit a plan made by you as John. So I'm asking your thinking for that plan. You say that your theory is based on facts, I'm saying that you did not use all the facts. Your facts are:Jonbenet was found raped, killed, covered with her favorite blanket, at one of the rooms of her parent's basement.It was a broken window on that room.It was found by Patsy a ransom letter around 3 pages, thrown on the stairs toward the kitchen, where was stated the Jonbenet was kidnapped by a small foreign group, and the NEXT day they would make a phone call around 10:00 am. Order: Do not call the police or....Patsy made a phone call to 911 at 5:52 am (on December 26, 1996).No footprints were found ON the SNOW around the house.

I'm adding some other facts that you didn't use:The family was at a party's friend on December 25, 1996.Patsy didn't change the clothes she was wearing at the party.At 2:00 am (the next day) neighbors heard a scream from the Ramseys' house.It was found a suitcase close of the broken window, which was broken from inside.It was found footprints of some kind of boots on that room.Those boots were not found in the house.A stranger's DNA exists.There were some packages of gifts made by Patsy to be taken on the morning of December 25, 1996.Immediately, after Patsy called 911, called their family friends to come by.The first police (arrived) checked the house, try to open the door where JonBenet was found but he couldn't, so he left without checking it.Mr. White, opened that door but he couldn't saw anything because it was dark, no light there.The first police left, and the detective Linda came by.Her job was to monitor the phone call that kidnappers would made to John.The house was full of friends, not all on the same room that Linda was. Linda did several calls for other police to come at the house. Anybody came before JonBenet was found.At 1:00pm Linda ask Mr. White to take John and search the house.John went directly to the basement and found JonBenet dead. He took her in his arms.Mr. white asked for an ambulance.The detective Linda saw an ambulance near the house. Now can you tell me, which of my facts are not facts but ideas of mine?

It's true that I sometimes have trouble understanding you, but as you can see I do try to respond to your questions. However, you ask so many questions I don't have time to answer them all, and besides all your questions will be answered if you read the blog carefully. Also, you are confused about many aspects of both this case and my theory and you are wrong about many details.

I'm going to respond to some of the questions you've raised now, but in future I would prefer if you limited yourself to one or two, because I don't have time to go over the entire case every time you post a comment here. And I will ask you to stop repeating the same questions, because the answers are going to be the same, whether you are happy with them or not.

The broken window was not in the room where she was found. That room had no windows.

No footprints were found in the thin layer of FROST and also on the snow. By the time the sun came up that layer of frost would have melted so the photos Lou Smit displayed, showing no snow on much of the lawn are meaningless.

It's never been confirmed that Melody Stanton actually heard a scream that night, or that it came from the Ramsey home. She later changed her mind about that and said she was not sure.

Lou Smit saw some footprints in photographs taken of the floor of the room in which JonBenet was found. Since workmen had recently been using that room to store things, it's likely those prints were made by them. Also, it was determined that Burke owned a pair of HiTec boots, so the print could have been made at some point by him.

"Touch DNA" from six different individuals was found on JonBenet's clothing, according to James Kolar, one of the lead detectives on the case. It is known that such DNA can easily be transferred in many different ways, so it's not correct to assume the DNA came from her attacker. In fact there is NO reason to make that assumption.

Part of your problem with my theory is that you are misinformed about many details. This is not an easy case to understand because all sorts of irrelevant crap has been tossed out there by various people with various agendas. You really need to do your homework, and I'm sorry but I don't have time to do it for you.

One of the samples of "touch DNA" found on the victim's long johns was matched with the fragments of DNA found mixed with her own DNA in her blood. And because DA Mary Lacy became convinced that this DNA was that of her attacker, she had no choice but to release him. The ironies of this decision are discussed on my blog, in this post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/ironic-isnt-it.html

In my opinion he should not have been released for this reason, because as I see it, the DNA that Lacy found to be so important was probably due to innocent transfer from some unknown source and not from the attacker. There were other reasons to doubt his story, however, because important elements in it were not consistent with the facts.

I read my comments, and it is true that I am doing a lot of questions, and looking for answers from you. I apologize for this. So, I feel as an obligation to answer your question, what is bothering me with your theory? Partially, you've given the answer. I don't like to accept the idea that a father could do such terrible thing to his daughter. However, I was against the theory, not you. This case is very complicated, if John did the crime, why he is still free?! I'm trying to put myself in the place of Linda. Why she did those huge mistakes? The body of JonBenet was moved twice, once by John and once by her. In her interview she states that she was in a twilight zone! This was bothering me, and I thought that only one person couldn't cause this kind of feeling to a detective. So, I created my theory that was a group of people, not just one, and not the father.

I see. I too feel uncomfortable with the idea that John could have killed his own daughter, especially in the way it was done, which was very cold and brutal. But terrible things like that do happen. You may remember the case of Susan Smith, who drowned her little boys by driving her car into a pond. People can do terrible things when they are desperate and I think this is one of those cases. At least that's how I see it. I hope I'm wrong.

Since you did a theory, based on those facts that I mention above, and based on your imagination what John was thinking during doing his plan as the killer, I was asking you, why you thought that and not this. Because your theory it is not based on a fiction story but a real event. So I did those questions, which some of them you didn't understood, and some of them you told me you cannot answer beyond you've answered in your comments. I'm asking for some questions that I think are related to your theory in the way I think. Answers that you gave to other commentators are for them based on their questions, not for me. So, is it really that you do not understand my questions, or you do not like them because they "can blow" your suggested theory?

You are following your plan for the killer John, that he wrote the ransom letter and put this on those stairs. I'm asking you why John put the letter on the stair and not at some other places far from the phone? You are telling me, you cannot read minds. But, made John, in your theory, the plan using the mind or just hands?! While on the case of the broken window, you are telling what John thought in order to lie for his benefit.I'am asking you, why you disconnect Patsy from the most part of the mothers in our real life? Your answer is because she did the phone call, it's a fact. But, that it was John the killer is not a fact. And you are recalling me that I have to relate John with some fathers on our real life. Since it's a fact that Patsy did the 911 phone call, and also is a fact that she was wearing the same clothes, and since she behaved in the opposite of all other mothers would did in the same situation she was in, I'm suggesting that your theory (not I) make Patsy a possible killer, because she didn't called only 991, but also friends to come home (oh she didn't read the letter completely!). So in your theory, we have a killer father who made a plan and didn't follow it, and an impulsive mother that was not able to read the letter completely, or if she read it an irresponsible mother, or just a worker in that house who must do her job and call the police (but even a worker, can do it only if the owner of the house is not present at home). You do not accept these judgement, based on real life situations, because they are against your theory, that John is the killer and Patsy didn't know nothing about it. So again, it's your theory against Patsy.

I'm sorry but I'm having a really hard time dealing with your questions because first I don't understand many of them and second I'm not sure what aspect of my theory bothers you. It would help if you posted shorter comments and limited yourself to only one or two questions each time. As I said before I don't have time to go over the whole case with you every time you post.

Could you please comment on the whole, "John left the house to check his mail" issue? If you've discussed this elsewhere on your blog and I just haven't come across it yet, forgive me.

I believe John went "missing" for an hour or so when Arndt lost track of him, but I don't believe he ever left the house. The Ramsey's mail was delivered through a mail slot in their front door...they didn't have a mailbox outside. Some loser even tried to set the house on fire by pushing burning material through that front door mail slot several months after the murder.

I think he definitely went off on his own to do some extra staging, but he was never outside. He would have been seen.

I'm amazed at how much erroneous information is out there. You've also cleared up for me that JB was never penetrated with the paintbrush handle. I had thought for a long time that wood fragments were found inside her vagina, but a quick look at her autopsy report shows that no fragments were found. Where do these things get started?!Thanks.

Since Arndt was the only police officer present during the time John went missing, we have no way of knowing where he could have gone or whether he could have been seen by anyone in a position to report it. After all, this was his home and it would not have been unusual for him to be taking a walk around the block or wherever. I'm not saying he did, but he could have. The best candidate for getting rid of evidence would have been the toilet. Or a basement drain. But if he needed to get outside badly enough he may have felt he had no choice but to do that, regardless of whether he'd be seen. He'd have been VERY desperate at that point, for sure.

As for all the crazy rumors that get started and then morph into "facts," you have the forums to thank. The tendency is for everyone to jump to conclusions. "Birefringent" material from the paint brush handle is found in her vagina, so that must mean she was penetrated with the paint brush handle. Fibers from Patsy's sweater were found ENTWINED WITH THE CORD USED TO STRANGLE JONBENET, so that must mean Patsy HAS TO BE THE ONE who constructed that device. The phrase "southern common sense" is found in the ransom note and that must mean that Patsy, who was from the south, must have written it. On and on like that and pretty soon you are wallowing in a mire of mistaken misassumptions. (to coin a phrase)

I do not believe for 1 second that there was an intruder. Besides the obvious ransom note, but go back, the family dog wasn't home. More importantly, the alarm was off. How would an intruder know these things? And, what if this so called intruder, was waiting in the house or came in thru the basement and hid--that JR would not put the alarm on when going to bed? Another thing that is very important is the pineapple, what are the odds that a random bowl of pineapple would bd on the kitchen table at 6am? Lastly, consider the time, this was after the "OJ trial" "The crime of the century". There was a blanket thrown over Nicole which came into question?? We know the Ramsey's watched the trial, as Patsy brought it up during a rare interview. This is why JR "found" her and then covered her with a blsnket. After that was done, any high priced lawyer could get them out of it. All they had to do was blame each other, or the shoddy police work as wss just done in a highly publicized "Not Guilty" verdict. So what was the Ramsey's best defense-- each other!! I came up with sonething today. Patsy more than likely had to be up with JonBenet after a bedwetting incident, or not being able to sleep? Patsy was with her and cut a fresh pineapple for her and maybe Burke to eat? She got angry w/ JonBenet and sonehow fractured her skull by accident. (Fit of rage perhaps) she woke up hef husband who solved problems for a living, and he then choked the remaining life of a lifeless JonBenet in the cellar. This makes perfect sense. They create doubt everywhere. Surely, both Parents couldn't of "in effect" killed JonBenet? Or could they, they could blame each other, or Burke? It could then have become a chicken and egg theory on who actually killed her. They may not have known themselves? If, John was molesting her... He would have no problem making sure he covered things up for his wife, while casting doubt everywhere. This is my theory on what happened to JonBenet Ramsey.

I suspect the mother was desperate for attention and planned for some guy to kidnap her daughter but he went too far. She was dressing that kid up like Dolly Parton at such a young age and taking her to the doctor constantly. Not once did she really seem devastated in interviews, she seemed to smile a lot and appeared to enjoy the attention.

I saw a documentary about this case recently and the gardener seemed really suspicious in the brief clip. He also seemed a little simple JUST like in that movie The Hand That Rocks the Cradle. Anyway, someone of low intelligence wrote that letter.

Yes-most emotionally disturbed children wet the bed. Whatever happened in that family was conveniently masked throughout the years. Only time will tell. Re-open the case and this time cross examine Burke and watch the birth of truth.

The timing of this murder--the day after Christmas--has always bothered me. I recall one Christmas where my 9 year-old sister received a giant box from Santa. I was 5 years-old and received a tiny, insignificant box. I burst into tears and was inconsolable for at least an hour. I can't help but wonder what Burke got for Christmas that year. Is it possible that he was stewing all day long and lashed out when he finally got home from parties? Does anyone know what he and JBR received for Christmas? This may seem small, but it could have been the tipping point for a jealous child.

Burke was stewing not just the night before X-mas but for the entire six years of JonBenet' life. I agree he was jealously full of rage and capable of any horrific act. He was also a very intelligent kid according to others-Burke read plenty of books and some of those books could have been how to kill your sister with a "garotte".

AnonymousI totally agree with your post. No one has the guts to come forth and say that Burke has been brewing for as long as JonBenet has been in pageants. This is obvious a kid with autism-lets call it Aspergers-whose behavior by the way has been observed on many occassions. The attention his sister has been getting over the years began to make him feel invisible, neglected and unwanted. There is no doubt in my mind that he is the killer

I have enjoyed reading all the comments and can only add this. I always wondered why Patsy Ramsey was wearing her party clothes from the night before. The knot on the garrote, especially the handle seems to be very professionally ( or competently tied ). I seem to recall hearing at least a rumor that there was another party in the neighborhood that night and that drugs ( cocaine? ) may have been consumed. I don't know what the heck happened there that night but I would bet the ransom note was written by Patsy. Something is being covered up and she knows it. Maybe the PD was hoping to put pressure on the mother and to a lesser extent the father to get them to break under the strain.

If Patsy had been up all night in her party clothes, they'd have been a mess in the morning and she would certainly have changed. If Patsy wrote the note she would certainly NOT have called 911 first thing in the morning, as that call totally negated the staging in the note.

New and Improved!

Currently available from the Kindle Store

Search This Blog

Things to Come

Things to Come

I just learned the other day of a new book on a case once labeled, "the crime of the century," but now almost completely forgotten. The title: Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? The author: James Kolar, a lead investigator during the reign of DA Mary Lacy, who famously exonerated John and Patsy Ramsey on the basis of a few miniscule fragments of so-called "intruder DNA." Thankfully, Kolar is not among those convinced by that very dubious "evidence." On the contrary, according to an excellent review,New Clues in JonBenet Ramsey Murder, recently published in the Daily Beast, Kolar's book presents strong evidence against the intruder theory -- implying, of course, that the murder was an inside job. I agree.

The publication of this new book, which I promptly ordered as soon as I found out about it, has prompted me, in spite of many misgivings, to once again plunge into the fray of this case, which for too many years, back in the late 90's and early 00's, as a regular poster on several Internet forums, occupied far too much of my attention and proved an endless source of frustration and annoyance, not only to me, but most of my fellow iSleuths. My problem was that I had solved it.